Could this happen ????

[Al Tobia]

There is talk floating around for TV broadcasters to give up more or all of the TV broadcast spectrum for wireless use.

I don't think this will be a total giveback but I could see wireless use in areas where a particular channel ( TV channel frequency ) is not is use.

Some other ideas ,move say all major 4 networks ( ABC / CBS / FOX / NBC ) to one channel ( transmitter ) in a market and have them just transmit 4 SD signals only.
This will free up channels.
4 SD's is considered the max norm on a channel without loosing too much pix quality.

With about HD from the local TV station you ask . . . you'd get that by cable or satellite only,can't afford this . . . the feds will help you afford it.

Broadcasters aren't happy and plan to fight it.

Broadcasters told the FCC to look at government frequencies that are not utilized much . . . I can think of a group of frequencies . . . 225 - 420 Mhz for example.

The feds feel that TV frequencies propagate great . . . well so does 225-420Mhz.

leave the 220 and 440 ham bands alone . . . at least they are used.

Al ( northern CA. )

[Russ-PA]

It is mostly talk, and has been around for a while.

Could it happen ? Well, almost anything could happen. The issue here is one of probability and time. This one is low probability, especially anytime soon.

[Stanislav]

Except, don't forget, that the current FCC Chairman comes straight from a wireless background, and probably has a strong bias towards that industry.

Don't be so quick to write this off -- it could well happen.

[Russ-PA]

After all of the money the broadcast industry has spent in the past two years on going digital, and all of the backlash from viewers over it, I seriously don't think that the Chairman's background is that big a deal. Nor do I believe he'll be there when the aftertaste of this transition wears away since that is likely to be 5 years or more.

[Al Tobia]

I think this could happen,I hope not.
Right now with compression a person is not really getting the best picture that they'd get if a station was running one program on their channel . . . this to me is an indication that the broadcaster is not interested in quality just quanity.
The only thing many broadcaster now see in its over the air signal is a way to maybe put more data on it . . . to make money.
And not data that'll make pictures and sound !
If a broadcaster could get cable and satellite to carry all their programs ( -1 ,-2 ,-3 ,etc. ) I think they'd give up on over the air signals ,not all broadcasters but many.
I been to NAB and PBS seminars when a group of enginnering ,managers ,program directors ,etc, were asked if over the air TV signal was heading toward dead . . . the applause was about equal to the group that said it was not.

I think the present FCC is "internet ,nerd ,PC" bound . . . and I'd bet would seriously try to convinve the public to get all TV and Radio over the internet or via internet wireless.
Look at countries in Europe ,they are doing away with the AM band !

I love over the air broadcasting,it'll be there in a major catastrophe while the "wired / wireless systems" would be down.
But I think the average Joe doesn't care if the internet goes down they'll think "oh that's the way it is now " ,they are PC raised not over the air raised.

This is somewthing to watch especially when the FCC person in change of this ( a wireless expert ) is going above the local broadcaster and to the companies that own the stations and they only see MONEY !

Al ( northern CA )

[davenlr]

Personally, I would prefer if the FCC were to sell off channels 2 through 4 to the wireless industry, assign 5 and 6 to a dedicated digital FM broadcast band, and for the most part, I could do without channels 7 thru 13 as well. Surely there are enough UHF spectrum channels, even in large city areas, if they would do away with all the low power stations that simply retransmit satellite transponders 24/7 with no ID, and in most cases, no employees at all.
Central Arkansas is loaded with totally worthless transmitters. We actually have two stations (one on channel 9, one on UHF) that BOTH retransmit AMG TV, with the output of the satellite receiver plugged right into the transmitter. Never any ID, still analog, cant pick em up good enough to watch if you are over 5 miles away, even with a high gain antenna and amp, but just sitting on a channel and screwing up DX.

Thats just my take on the situation. I have asked everyone I know, locally, with antennas, if they watched channel x or channel y (low power stations), and 100% of the responses so far have been "Channel what? I didnt even know there was one".

I can see low power stations as translators, or to serve a small town in the boonies, etc, but there should NEVER be any low power station licenses issued in large metro areas unless the station actually plans to serve a segment of the population within its limited reception range i.e. Telemundo, locally produced programming/news/weather/public service.

I may be way off base, but in my area, it makes sense.

[ES5NHC]

Sorry, but I do not agree with the idea of trimming down broadcasting band any further. Less space for channels = more CCI during DX conditions.

Here the space for digital is sparse - because analog is still on air until July 2010. Transmission of free to air terrestrial channels is done by a broadcasting monopoly, and all of them are in single multiplex. Once the CCI kicks in on right multiplex, all FTAs are down and viewers disturbed.

I do not trust cable a bit. In case of feces hitting the fan, it will probably be more at a risk of going offline than terrestrial.

[davenlr]

I can see your point with analog transmissions, but I have successfully DX'ed very weak ATSC digitals on the channels either side of full power local digitals within LOS of my antenna, so I dont think its quite as big a problem with digital. I have heard reports where channel X+3, or X+whatever causes CCI on digital, but I havent had any real world examples where it made any difference in my reception. The only thing I *DO* know for sure, is channels 2-6 are worthless for digital TV. Flipping a light switch in the house causes a total dropout/relock, and channels 7-13 are basically useless anytime a thunderstorm is within 20 miles of the receive site, although Ill grant that on analog, you would get lightning static in the picture as well. I can, however, watch a station with less than 10% quality above my receivers lock sensitivity, without any interruption if the station is on UHF.

[antennanut]

It seems to me the sale of channels 2-4 to the wireless industry would totally mess up the wonderful Es foreign DX opportunities we now enjoy with the analog shutdown in the U.S. That being the case, I hope it never happens. Another post discusses the possibility exists that several low power stations are going to file applications soon with the FCC (if not already) due to the mostly vacant frequencies digitally on channels 2-6. This will be a tragedy if it happens, as would the sale to the wireless industry. Just my 2 cents worth...

[Danny]

I always do such a good job of making people angry with my disagreeable comments that I couldn't miss another opportunity.

As this is a forum for TV, FM, and AM DXers, I must say that I'm always against anything that makes DXing more difficult or causes a loss of frequencies for DXing.

Losing the best TV channels for Es (channels 2-4) would probably push TV DXing to a certain death down here in the south where Es from Mexico and Latin America are common.

Although we now know that DTV DXing on the low-band is possible, it is not enough to keep up my interest.

[Robert Grant]

Do keep in mind that, since people want their wireless devices to be small and not show any evidence or an antenna (even a bulge in the plastic handset concealing one), trying to allocate 54-72 MHz to wireless and auctioning it off on Ebay might bring the treasury $1.95 :rotfl:

[davenlr]

I would be handy for public safety though, and a expanded 6 meter ham band would be nice :)

Actually, it would probably be ok for TV as well, if they allowed the stations to run 100KW like they did on analog.

[antennanut]

I always do such a good job of making people angry with my disagreeable comments that I couldn't miss another opportunity.

As this is a forum for TV, FM, and AM DXers, I must say that I'm always against anything that makes DXing more difficult or causes a loss of frequencies for DXing.

Losing the best TV channels for Es (channels 2-4) would probably push TV DXing to a certain death down here in the south where Es from Mexico and Latin America are common.

Although we now know that DTV DXing on the low-band is possible, it is not enough to keep up my interest.

Danny, your comments definitely agree with my point of view!

[Danny]

Danny, your comments definitely agree with my point of view!

Thank you kindly.

In reality, and in spite of my recent complaints about DTV DXing, I don't plan to quit DXing.

Robert is correct about the size of antennas needed on the low band being a deterrent in regards to mobile services.

Recently, I made it clear that the shorter distances of my DTV logs (compared to analog) are disappointing. My setup worked fine with analog TV. I logged over 700 analog TV stations with that equipment, including several VHFs and a couple of UHFs via tropo over 900 miles distance. IMHO, unless you are near the Gulf or Atlantic coasts, you will need the best antennas available at high elevations agl in order to receive long-haul DTV DX regularly. And it still won't be as distant or as regular as analog.

I'm already thinking about raising the UHF antenna.

[cd637299]

Danny,

Echoes here in regard to DTV DX. Honestly I think my longest catch may only be 100 air miles (WBBH DT 15). With strong Tr to the N, was hoping to maybe catch WESH DT 11, but now there's an LD around Boca Raton (which recently had on-screen a notice something like "Call xxx-xxx-xxxx if you are seeing this signal, and you'll get a $5 discount at [restaurant]"!!).

Still, you have caught DTV on Es, and I plan to get a new V/U antenna next month....so who knows?

Back in July when I was in the Keys to see the strongest Cuba TV signals, I saw CCI on ch 4 and said to myself, "them wuz the days"....

cd

[Danny]

Christopher, try for DTV Es and tropo with the new antenna. If you have the time to work the DX, you will likely add to your log in the months to come.